REZ-20-07 SUB-07-07 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Rezone from the UR-3.5 Zone to the UR-7* )
Zone, and Preliminary Plat of Ponderosa East; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
File No. REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Applicant: Whipple Consulting Engineers ) AND DECISION
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Consolidated application for a rezone from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7*
zone, under the expired City Interim Zoning Code; and for a preliminary plat in the UR-7* zone,
under the expired City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
Summary of Decision: Approve consolidated application, subject to conditions of approval.
The preliminary plat will expire on March 10, 2014, unless a time extension is approved under
Section 20.30.060 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The underlying zoning of
the site will remain R-2, under the SVMC.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Background
1. The consolidated application proposes a rezone of approximately 5.7 acres of land from the
Urban Residential-3.5 (UR-3.5) zone to the Urban Residential-7* (UR-7*)zone, under the
expired City Interim Zoning Code; and a preliminary plat to divide such acreage into 18 lots for
single-family dwellings, under the expired City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The site is located directly southeast of Old Schafer Road, and directly southwest of Union
Pacific Railroad right of way, in Spokane Valley, Washington.
3. The site is referenced as County Assessor tax parcel nos. 45321.9060 and 45332.9069.
t3' P
4. The applicant is Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc.; addressed at 2528 N. Sullivan Road,
Spokane Valley, WA 99216. The site owner is Diamond Rock Construction, Inc.; addressed at
c/o Dennis Crapo, 15321 E. Mission Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99037.
5. On October 5, 2007, the applicant submitted a complete application for the proposal. The
application was reviewed under the City's development regulations and Comprehensive Plan
policies in place on such date.
6. On October 10, 2008, the City Community Development Department issued a
Determination of Nonsignificance(DNS) for the application. The DNS was not appealed.
7. On January 22, 2009, the Hearing Examiner conducted a consolidated public hearing on the
current application, and a related application to alter the final plat of Inverary in File No. SUB-
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 1
O5A-05 submitted on July 28, 2008. Notice of hearing requirements were met for each
application.
8. The following persons testified at the public hearing:
Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Micki Harnois, Associate Planner
Spokane Valley Planning Division Spokane Valley Planning Division
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Greg McCormick Inga Note, Traffic Engineer
Spokane Valley Planning Division Spokane Valley Public Works
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Mark Hohman, Senior Engineer Stacy Bjordahl
Spokane Valley Public Works Attorney at Law
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 505 W. Riverside, #500
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane, WA 99201
Todd Whipple Susan Schmidt
Whipple Consulting Engineers 3808 S. Sundown Lane
2528 N. Sullivan Road Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Richard Behm
3626 S. Ridgeview Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
9. The Hearing Examiner heard the application pursuant to former Chapter 10.35 of the
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), Interim Zoning Code, Interim Subdivision Ordinance,
and Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. The Examiner conducted a site visit prior to the
hearing and after the hearing.
10. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the SVMC,the City Comprehensive Plan, City
interim development regulations in place on October 5, 2007, prior land use decisions in the
vicinity, and the Examiner's decision in File No. SUB-05A-05 issued on the same date as the
current decision.
11. The record includes the documents in the current application file and the application file in
File No. SUB-05A-05 at the time of the public hearing,the documents and testimony submitted
at the public hearing, and the items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing
Examiner hereby adopts, and incorporates by reference herein,the Findings of Fact included in
the Examiner's decision in File No. SUB-05A-05.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 2
12. The Examiner also includes in the record the Order of Dismissal entered by Judge Kathleen
O'Connor in Spokane County Superior Court Cause No. 08-2-00010-3, on January 7, 2009;
which upheld the decision of the City Council to affirm the Examiner's decision in File No.
REZ-23-04/SUB-15-04/APP-03-07, and was referenced at the current public hearing.
Description of Site
13. The site consists of a triangular-shaped parcel of approximately 5.4 acres, improved with a
single-family dwelling and detached accessory structure. The site also includes a 65-foot wide
strip of land of approximately .3 acres; that extends between the parcel and Old Schafer Road,
and is improved with a gravel driveway.
14. The site is relatively flat in topography; except for some moderately steep slopes, not
exceeding 30%, located along the northerly fringe of a portion of the site. See preliminary plat
rnap. The site generally slopes slightly to the southeast.
15. The site is moderately wooded with mature pine trees, grasses and weeds. Residential
landscaping is found around the existing home, and an arborvitae hedge extends along the north
and south borders of the access strip. Cyclone and wire fencing are located along the perimeter
of the site. See aerial and ground photos of site.
Design of Preliminary Plat
16. The preliminary plat map of record submitted on July 8, 2008 illustrates a lot of 34,725
square feet for the existing residence on the site; and 17 additional lots for single-family
dwellings,ranging from 7,469 square feet to 14,582 square feet in size. The total lot area is
187,675 square feet(4.3 acres), which yields an average lot size of approximately 10,400 square
feet.
17. The dimensions of the site on the preliminary plat map and County Assessor maps, and the
area of the site based on County Assessor parcel information, correspond to a plat area of
approximately roximatel 5.7 acres.
18. The preliminary plat map erroneously lists a total plat area of 5.08 acres. Further, if the
total lot area(4.3 acres) in the preliminary plat is added to the sum of the listed road area(.6
acres) and listed open space tract area(.11 acres), the total plat area would be an erroneous 4.47
acres.
19. The map lists a common open space tract area of.11 acres, which applies to tract located in
the north end of the main body of the preliminary plat. The strips of land located on each side of
the proposed road in the neck of the site, of approximately .16 acres, should also be considered as
common open space. This yields .27 acres of common open space in the preliminary plat.
20. The map lists a road area of approximately .6 acres. However, if the sum of the total lot
area and the common open space (4.6 acres) is subtracted from the total plat area(5.7 acres),the
actual road area in the preliminary plat would be approximately 1.1 acre.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 3
21. The density(net) of the preliminary plat is approximately 3.9 dwelling units per acre, based
on a 5.7-acre plat size and 1.1-acre road area. See definition of"density" in Section 14.300.100
of Interim Zoning Code.
22. The map illustrates an internal private road system that connects to Old Schafer Road; and
shows the location of the 100-year floodplain on the site at the time the preliminary plat was
submitted. The map indicates that the existing residence and detached accessory structure on the
site will remain after final platting.
Land Use Designations for Site and Area, Surrounding Conditions
23. The UR-3.5 zoning of the site was first established in 1991, under the County Zoning Code.
When the City incorporated in 2003, it adopted the County Zoning Code by reference, as the City
Interim Zoning Code; and retained the UR-3.5 zoning of the site.
24. In 2004,the City amended the development standards for the UR-3.5, UR-7, UR-22 and
other residential zones in the Interim Zoning Code.
25. In 2005,the Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat of Inverary to divide 2.9 acres
of land located northwest of the site, across Old Schafer Road, into 30 lots for divided duplexes,
at a density(net) of 11.8 dwelling units per acre; and approved a change of condition to a prior
rezone of such acreage to the UR-22 zone,to allow such development. See decision in File No.
ZE-46A-90/SUB-05-05.
26. In May of 2006, the City implemented the current Comprehensive Plan; which contained
new land use categories, policies and text. The City Phase I Development Regulations were also
updated to specify the zones in the City Interim Zoning Code that implemented the new land use
categories in the Comprehensive Plan, for rezone purposes. The Comprehensive Plan was
updated on July 31, 2008.
27. On March 9, 2007, the final plat of Inverary was approved, for 28 divided duplex lots and
one (1) single-family dwelling; for a total of 29 dwelling units. See File No. ZE-46A-90/SUB-
05-05. The applicant and the site owner for such project are the same as for the current project.
28. On October 28, 2007,the City fully implemented a Uniform Development Code (UDC) in
C. The UDC replaced the City Interim Zoning Code, Interim
Titles 17-24 of the SVM p ty g
Subdivision Ordinance, Phase I Development Regulations, and other City development
regulations in place at the time. The City also adopted new zoning maps throughout the city,to
implement the new zones in the UDC.
29. The 2.9 acres of land in the Inverary plat are designated in the Low Density Residential
category of the Comprehensive Plan, and zoned Single-family Residential Urban District(R-4)
under the UDC. Such land was previously zoned UR-22.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 4
ii
30. The site, and the other neighboring land located southwest of Dishman-Mica Road, are
designated in the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, and zoned
Single-family Residential Suburban (R-2) under the UDC. See Exhibit #20 and 22. Such land
was previously zoned UR-3.5.
31. Neighboring land uses generally consist of single-family homes on lots and parcels of
various sizes. The land lying south of the main body of the site is comprised of wooded acreage
parcels that are improved with single-family homes or undeveloped.
32. The site and the Inverary plat are bordered on the northeast by a 100-foot wide railway
right of way, containing one (1) set of railroad tracks. The railway experiences light usage of a
few trains per day. Vacant land, wetlands and Chester Creek are situated between the railway
right of way and Dishman-Mica Road.
33. An at-grade railroad crossing of Schafer Road, controlled by cross arms and railroad
signalization, is situated approximately 50 feet north of the final plat of Ponderosa Pointe. A
neighborhood park is located north of the site; along the east side of University Road, northeast
of Dishman-Mica Road.
34. Redeemer Lutheran Church is located northwest of the site; on the west side of Schafer
Road, directly across from the Ponderosa Pointe final plat. Ponderosa Elementary School is
found a few blocks southwest of the site, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Wilbur
Road and Cimmaron Drive. A convenience store is located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of University Road and Dishman-Mica Road.
Neighborhood Opposition to Proposal
35. Neighboring property owners expressed opposition to the application based on concerns
over alteration of the final plat of Inverary to extend a secondary access to Schafer Road,traffic
safety and congestion, impacts to pedestrians, inconsistency of proposed housing with
neighboring development, wildfire danger, inadequate fire access for the project and the
Ponderosa area, drainage, impacts to floodplain and wetlands, impacts to wildlife, inconsistency
of proposed housing with other residential development in the area, lack of justification for the
proposed rezone, and other concerns.
Relevant Policies of Comprehensive Plan
36. The Staff Report sets forth relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan; prior to its July 31,
2008 update, which update does not apply to the application. This includes policy LUP-1.7,
which recommends that zone changes be allowed within the Low Density Residential category of
the Comprehensive Plan when specific criteria are met; such as substantial changes within the
area of the rezone site,the availability of adequate facilities and public services, and consistency
with residential densities in the vicinity of the rezone site.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 5
I
37. Policies LUP-1.1 and NP-2.1 recommend that the character of existing and future
residential neighborhoods be maintained and protected through the development and
enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning.
38. Policies LUP-1.4 and LUP-2.3 encourage the development of transportation routes and
facilities to serve residential neighborhoods; with special attention given to pedestrian
circulation, biking and transit uses. Policy TP-9.8 recommends that pedestrian facilities such as
sidewalks be required in all new developments.
39. Policy LUP-16.1 encourages new developments to be arranged in a pattern of connecting
streets and blocks, to allow people to get around easily by foot, bicycle and car.
40. Policy TP-1.1 states that street design should provide for connectivity between residential
neighborhoods and collectors, and discourage cut-through traffic. Policy TP-2.1 recommends
that street designs complement adjacent development.
41. Policy TP-2.1 discourages private roads as a principal means of access to developments,
and recommends that private roads be designed and constructed to public street standards.
42. Policy LUP-16.3 recommends that adequate emergency evacuation routes be required prior
to approving new development.
43. Policy CFP-2.1 states that facilities and services shall meet certain specified minimum
levels of service. Policy CFP-2.4 states that if adopted level of service standards cannot be
maintained,the City shall increase funding, reduce level of service, or reassess the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
44. Policy CFP-4.6 recommends that new development connect to public sewer and water.
Policy CFP-8.2 recommends that the review of new residential development consider the
adequacy of school facilities.
ks
45. Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan contains numerous policies that address the impacts
of new development on stormwater, floodplains, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife
habitat and wetlands. For the current application,these policies are implemented through the
City Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, and the City floodplain and stormwater regulations in
place at the time the application was submitted on October 5, 2007.
Compliance with Zoning Standards
46. The expired Phase I Development Regulations, which apply to the a pp lication, required all
zone reclassifications to be consistent with the implementing zones specified in such regulations
for the Comprehensive Plan designations that apply to the subject property.
47. The implementing zones for the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive
Plan, under the Phase I Development Regulations, are the UR-3.5 and UR-7 zones. Since the site
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 6
is designated in the Low Density Residential category, the proposed rezone of the site to the UR-
7* zone complies with the rezone criteria set forth in the Phase I Development Regulations.
48. The UR-3.5 zone of the Interim Zoning Code, which applied to the site prior to October 28,
2007,was intended to promote areas of primarily single-family residences in an urbanized
neighborhood setting. The UR-3.5 zone permitted single-family homes, duplexes and various
other uses.
49. The UR-3.5 zone imposed a maximum residential density(net) of 4.35 dwelling units per
acre, a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling, and a minimum lot
frontage of 80 feet for a single-family dwelling.
50. The UR-7* zone of the Interim Zoning Code,the proposed zoning for the site, was intended
to add to the variety of housing types and densities in urban areas; and to provide standards for
the orderly development of residential property in a manner that provides a desirable living
environment that is compatible with surrounding land uses, and assures the protection of property
values. The UR-7* zone permitted the same uses as the UR-3.5 zone, along with multi-family
dwellings and certain other more intensive uses.
51. The Phase I Development Regulations limited new residential development in the Low
Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, on land rezoned to the UR-7 under
such regulations,to a density(net) of 6.0 dwelling units per acre. Such zoning was referred to as
the"UR-7*"zone. The UR-7 zone otherwise permitted a residential density of seven(7)
dwelling units per acre.
52. The UR-7 zone required a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, and a minimum lot
frontage of 65 feet, for a single-family dwelling.
53. The Staff Report found the preliminary plat to be consistent with the development
standards of the UR-7* zone; except that it found proposed Lot 13 in the preliminary plat to have
a frontage of only 36 feet on a private street, instead of the 65 feet required by the UR-7* zone.
54. Lot 13 actually appears to have 60 feet of frontage in the preliminary plat; through use of
the private driveway that the preliminary plat map shows serving Lots 13 and 12, and which
connects to the internal private road system. This 8%deviation from the required lot frontage
could be allowed through the approval of an administrative exception, under Section
14.506.020(6)(a) of the Interim Zoning Code. Such section allows a deviation of 10%or less
than the minimum lot frontage required by the underlying zone.
55. The density(net) of the preliminary plat, at 3.9 dwelling units per acre, not only complies
with the UR-7* zone, but also complies with the UR-3.5 zone. The average lot size in the project
also exceeds the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet required in the UR-3.5 zone.
56. The site, and most nearby land, are currently zoned R-2 under the UDC. The minimum lot
area per dwelling unit, minimum lot width, and minimum lot depth for a single-family or duplex
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 7
I
dwelling in the R-2 district are, respectively, 10,000 square feet, 80 feet and 90 feet. These
standards are similar to those in the expired UR-3.5 zone.
57. The Ponderosa Pointe development lying northwest of the site, across Old Schafer Road, is
currently zoned R-4 under the UDC. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot
width and minimum lot depth in the R-4 district, for both single-family and duplex dwellings,
are, respectively, 6,000 square feet, 50 feet and 80 feet.
58. The building setbacks, and the maximum building height, are the same in the UR-3.5 and
UR-7 zones of the City Interim Zoning Code, and the R-2 and R-4 districts of the UDC.
59. The project is generally compatible with neighboring residential land uses; considering
location of the site along a railroad right of way; the medium density duplex development zoned
R-4 to the northwest; and the relatively low density of housing and large average lot size in the
project for the UR-7* zone.
Transportation Concurrency,Traffic Impacts
60. The City Arterial Road Plan designates Schafer Road as a Collector, Dishman-Mica Road
to the northwest as a Principal Arterial, Dishman-Mica Road to the southeast as a Minor Arterial;
and University Road as a Minor Arterial. Old Schafer Road, Mercy Drive and other neighboring
roads are considered Local Access streets.
61. The intersection of Schafer Road/University Road and Dishman-Mica Road is signalized,
and has "protected" left turns. The Schafer Road leg of the intersection has a left turn/shared
through-right turn lane. The intersection of Mercy Drive/Mercy Court and Schafer Road is not
signalized, but has stop signs on Mercy Drive and Mercy Court that control access to Schafer
Road. Seep. 7 of TIA referenced below.
62. The applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project; which was prepared
by Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc., a qualified traffic engineering consultant. See TIA for
Ponderosa East, revised on 9-12-08. The TIA was accepted by City Engineering
63. The TIA reviewed the level of service (LOS) and traffic safety at the intersection of
Dishman-Mica Road/University Road and Schafer Road, and the intersection of Mercy Drive and
Schafer Road; as scoped by the City. The TIA also took into consideration the proposed
p Y tY• p P
alteration of the final plat of Inverary, to provide a secondary fire/emergency access from such
plat to Schafer Road.
64. City Engineering certified that the project met transportation concurrency requirements,
under the City Phase I Development Regulations. This equates to a determination that the
project will not degrade the LOS at key City road intersections impacted by the project in the
area during the PM peak hour to a failing level. See Section 1.20 of 2001 County Standards for
Road and Sewer Construction, adopted by reference by the City; and hereinafter referenced as the
"City Road Standards".
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 8
65. The TIA found no LOS or traffic safety concerns at the study intersections, supports the
City's certification of transportation concurrency for the scoped intersections, and was not
rebutted by project opponents through the submittal of competent traffic engineering evidence.
66. The final plat of Inverary was required to install additional pavement, curb, gutter and
sidewalk along its frontage with Schafer Road.
67. The final plat of Inverary was also required to strip pave Old Schafer Road south to Mercy
Drive, to a width of 27 feet; install additional pavement, curb, gutter and a 5-foot sidewalk along
its frontage with Old Schafer Road; and install additional asphalt, and a 2-foot gravel shoulder,
on the opposite side of Old Schafer Road from the final plat.
68. City Engineering conditions for the current project require the applicant to install similar
frontage improvements along Old Schafer Road, although this only involves 65 feet of frontage
for the current project.
69. Schafer Road, Old Schafer Road and Mercy Drive in the vicinity lack curb and sidewalk;
except for the curb and sidewalk installed for the Inverary plat.
70. Project opponents did not submit competent traffic engineering evidence to support their
concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and students using Schafer Road, Old Schafer Road,
and Mercy Drive. The applicant is required to install sidewalk along the frontage of the site with
Old Schafer Road, as required by the City Road Standards.
Emergency/Fire Access
71. City Engineering and County Fire District 1 submitted conditions for the current project
that require the applicant to install a secondary access to Schafer Road in the Inverary plat(to be
renamed"Ponderosa Pointe"), through the plat alteration proposed in File No. SUB-05A-05. >
72. The secondary access requirement is based on a total of 56 lots potentially accessing onto
Mercy Drive, between Old Schafer Road and Schafer Road. This includes the 18 lots in the
current project, 29 lots in the Inverary plat, and nine (9) other existing lots accessing Mercy Drive
in the vicinity. See letter dated 6-11-07 from Henry Allen to Karen Kendall.
73. The City Fire Code applicable to the current application states that developments with more
than 30 single-family dwellings "... shall be provided with separate and approved fire apparatus
access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3." See 2003 International Fire
Code, Appendix D, Section D107; and letter dated 6-13-07 from Rick Frier of Fire District 1 to
Karen Kendall.
74. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards, in pertinent part, requires that a proposed
subdivision provide an additional access road into the development to serve fire district vehicles,
if the development has the cumulative effect of creating a total number of lots,parcels or tracts
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 9
served by an access road that equals or exceeds 50 lots, in a"setting" where the housing density
ranges from 2-11 dwelling units per acre. The location of the additional access road must have
the concurrence of the fire district.
75. Section 1.03(8) of the City Road Standards also requires an additional access road to serve
fire district vehicles if the local fire district concludes that the location and layout of the
development causes a concern for safety, regardless of the other criteria in such section.
76. The approval of the plat alteration would allow the current project to comply with the
secondary access requirements set forth in the City Fire Code and the City Road Standards.
Impacts and concerns associated with the plat alteration are addressed in the Hearing Examiner's
decision in File No. SUB-05A-05, issued at the same time as the current decision.
77. In commenting on the project, County Fire District 1 also referenced Resolution No. 2007-
284, which was adopted on June 4, 2007 by the Board of Fire Commissioners for Fire District 1.
Resolution No. 2007-284 recommended to the City and County"...that no further development
be allowed in the Ponderosa Neighborhood until a third (3rd)public ingress/egress be
constructed".
78. Resolution No. 2007-284 stated that the occurrence of a large firestorm event in the
Ponderosa area in 1991 demonstrated that the Ponderosa area is in a wildland interface area that
is susceptible to major fire events, the Ponderosa area continues to develop residential
subdivisions which generate more vehicle traffic with only two (2)public ingress and egress
roads, each additional development in the Ponderosa area has cumulative effects on ingress and
egress, access by fire apparatus would be hindered while resident vehicles congest the roadways
trying to evacuate from another fire like the 1991 firestorm, and a third(3rd)public ingress and
egress would help alleviate emergency congestion in the event of disaster.
79. Other than citing the resolution, and the need for the secondary access through the
Ponderosa Pointe plat to Schafer Road, Fire District 1 expressed no specific concerns regarding
fire access for the current project. See letters dated 7-28-08 and 11-27-07 from Rick Freir of Fire
District 1 to Micki Harnois, email dated 7-8-08 from Kevin Miller of Fire District 1 to Sandra
Raskell, et. al., and email dated 11-28-07 from Rick Freir to Micki Harnois.
80. On October 16, 1991, a significant wildfire/firestorm event occurred in various parts of
Spokane County; including a 3-mile long by 1-mile wide area located in the south Ponderosa
area.
81. The 1991 firestorm resulted in the destruction of 14 homes along Ferret Drive, located
approximately one (1)mile south of the site. The fire threatened the destruction of 105
additional homes in the south end of the Ponderosa area and the nearby Painted Hills area, with
the fire reaching as far north as 48th Avenue.
82. The 1991 firestorm occurred during the afternoon, on a weekday when many residents were
still at work; and was caused by a downed power line on Brown's Mountain. The fire grew to
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 10
1,587 acres in only four(4) hours, and forced the evacuation of over 2,500 residents in the
Ponderosa area. Residents received word to leave their homes 1.5 hours after the fire started, and
30 minutes later flames raced up a slope to reach the first homes that were damaged by fire.
83. The Ponderosa fire raced so quickly that fire and police officials could not organize an
evacuation through the two (2) signalized intersections located along Dishman-Mica Road, the
only exits out of the Ponderosa area for general vehicular traffic. See e.g., FF #77-79 in HE
Decision in File No. SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07, referenced below.
84. On August 5, 2005, the County Hearing Examiner(same as current Examiner) approved
the preliminary plat of Ponderosa Ridge; to subdivide 28 acres of land located over one(1)mile
southeast of the site, at the southeast corner of the intersection of 44th Avenue and Schafer
Branch Road, into 100 lots for single-family dwellings; in the UR-3.5 zone of the County Zoning
Code. See decision in File No. PE-1940-04.
85. The Examiner's Ponderosa Ridge decision was affirmed on appeal by Spokane County
Superior Court. On November 13, 2007, the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the
Superior Court, in an unpublished opinion. See exhibit"A"attached to Exhibit#24, and 141
Wn. App. 1031 (2007).
86. The Ponderosa Ridge decision, which primarily involved County Fire District 8, found that
fire access for the project was adequate; based largely on the fire evacuation analysis included in
a traffic impact analysis (TIA)prepared for such project by Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc.
("WCE"), expert testimony provided by the sponsor's fire safety consultant(Claude Wells), and
favorable review of the evacuation analysis by Spokane County Engineering.
87. On June 4, 2007, the Fire District Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 2007-
284. On the same day, County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich addressed a letter to the City Council,
expressing support for Resolution No. 2007-284.
88. On August 13, 2007, Chief Mike Thompson of Fire District 1 addressed a letter to the
Hearing Examiner; which advised that Resolution No. 2007-284 was intended to apply to the
preliminary plat of Ponderosa Estates North, as well as other developments proposed in the
Ponderosa area. On August 14, 2007, Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich sent an email to the Examiner
expressing support for Chief Thompson's letter.
89. On August 30, 2007, the Hearing Examiner denied a consolidated application to rezone 15
acres of land located one-half(1/2)mile northwest of the site, at the northerly termini of
Ridgeview Drive and Woodruff Road, from the UR-3.5 zone to the UR-7* zone; and for the
preliminary plat of Ponderosa Estates North, which proposed the creation of 45 lots for single-
family dwellings on such acreage in the UR-7* zone. See decision in File No. REZ-23-04/SUB-
15-04/APP-03-07. '
90. The Examiner denied the Ponderosa Estates North project on the basis that wildfire access
for such project was inadequate. This conclusion was based primarily on the following factors:
is
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 11
a. the Examiner's findings that the Ponderosa area could not be safely evacuated in an
approximately 30-minute period in the event of a wildfire, even with the use of emergency
personnel (contrary to contentions in the fire evacuation analysis prepared by WCE); based
on a review of the background data contained in the fire evacuation analysis that had not
previously been made available to the Examiner;
b. the testimony of Assistant Chief Larry Rider of Fire District 1, expressing concern
regarding the cumulative impacts of development in the Ponderosa area, without the
provision of a third access out of the area in the event of a wildfire; together ether with the dead-
end character of the internal roads in the Ponderosa Estates North project, which was
located at the"urban wildfire interface";
c. the findings and recommendations contained in Fire District 1 Resolution No. 2007-
284; and
d. the letter from Sheriff Knezovich to the City Council dated June 4, 2007, expressing
support for the fire district resolution.
91. On November 30, 2007, the Hearing Examiner approved an environmental appeal, and
ordered issuance of a Determination of Significance (DS), for the preliminary plat of Ponderosa
PUD. Such project proposed to subdivide 17 acres of land located directly east of the Ponderosa
Ridge project, along the south side of 44th Avenue, into 81 lots for single-family dwellings; in the
UR-7* zone of the City Interim Zoning Code. See decision, and denial of request for
reconsideration, in File No. SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07.
92. The Examiner's Ponderosa PUD decision was based on the same fire evacuation factors
taken into consideration for the Ponderosa Estates North decision; except that the Examiner also
1 gave substantial weight to the expert testimony of Thomas Cova, an authority on wildfire
evacuations called by project opponents at the Ponderosa PUD hearing. Fire District 1 did not
testify at the hearing; but the Examiner took into consideration the August 2007 correspondence
from Fire Chief Thompson and Sheriff Knezovich regarding Resolution No. 2007-284.
93. Thomas Cova emphasized the need to evacuate a community located in a high wildfire
hazard area, like the Ponderosa area, within an approximately 30-minute time frame; found that it
would take up to two (2) hours to evacuate the Ponderosa area(depending on the location of
ignition points), including up to 40 minutes for residents to be notified and prepare to leave their
homes; and concluded that an additional public access route out of the Ponderosa area was
needed to safely evacuate residents in the event of a wildfire. See, e.g. FF #394-413 in File No.
SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07.
94. The Examiner's Ponderosa PUD decision was upheld by the City Council. The City
Council's decision was upheld by Spokane County Superior Court on January 7, 2008. See
Order of Dismissal added to record by Examiner. However,the Examiner's decision on the
Ponderosa Estate North project was recently reversed by Spokane County Superior Court; by a
different judge, who also approved the project. See exhibit"B"attached to Exhibit#24. Both
matters are currently on appeal to the Washington State Court of Appeals.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 12
95. The applicant, in its Memorandum in Support of Application submitted at the current
hearing, contended that the Hearing Examiner erred in the Ponderosa PUD decision; by
concluding that access out of the Ponderosa area in the event of a wildfire was inadequate, based
on the finding that the area could not be evacuated in a 30-minute time frame.
96. In support of the above contention, the applicant's memorandum cited the Court of Appeals
unpublished opinion upholding the Examiner's Ponderosa Ridge decision, the Superior Court's
"letter decision"reversing the Examiner's decision on the adjacent Ponderosa PUD project, the
minutes from a July 18, 2007 meeting of Fire District 8 on the fire evacuation analysis, and the
existence of a third(3rd) "emergency access"out of the Ponderosa area. See Exhibit 24,p. 6-7,
and attachments thereto.
97. The applicant's memorandum failed to mention the Superior Court's decision on the
Ponderosa Estates North project, which upheld the Examiner's decision based on the virtually the
same findings and conclusions regarding the fire evacuation issue contained in the Examiner's
decision on the Ponderosa PUD decision.
98. Fire District 8 indicated at its July 18, 2007 meeting that the 30-minute time frame for
evacuating the Ponderosa area, used in the fire evacuation analysis prepared by WCE in 2005,
came from Fire District 8; was based on the time it took for the fire in the 1991 firestorm event
"...to move from point A to point B..."; and that the fire district simply asked Whipple
Consulting Engineers how much traffic could be moved in 30 minutes,without directing that the
evacuation had to be completed in 30 minutes.
99. Fire District 8 actually asked WCE, in 2004, that the fire evacuation analysis cover the need
for an evacuation of the entire Ponderosa area in the event of another firestorm, including the
capability of the road system exiting the Ponderosa area to handle 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles in a set
period of time.
100. The fire evacuation analysis was refined by WCE and Fire District 8 in 2005 to require the
study of only two (2)vehicles per housing unit leaving the Ponderosa area in a 30-minute time
period; assuming there were approximately 1,281 existing homes in the Ponderosa area. See FF
#139-141 in HE Decision in File No. PE-1940-04, FF#201 and 239 in HE Decision in File No.
REZ-23-04/SUB-15-04/APP-03-07, and FF#222-225, 297, 298 and 328 in HE Decision in File
No. SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07.
101. The fire evacuation analysis prepared by WCE specifically found that the Ponderosa area
could be evacuated in a 30-minute time frame in the event of a wildfire, subject to emergency
personnel controlling the signals at the two main intersections located along Dishman-Mica
Road. See FF#241 in HE Decision in File No. REZ-23-04/SUB-15-04/APP-03-07, FF#356 in
HE Decision in File No. SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07; and FF#143 in HE Decision in
File No. PE-1940-04.
102. In 2005, Chief Walkup of Fire District 8 responded in writing to concerns raised by an area
resident, regarding the fire evacuation analysis. Walkup advised in a letter that the district did
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 13
not have a copy of any detailed analysis or maps of the evacuation model, other than that
contained in the TIA; did not have written adopted evacuation plans for specific neighborhoods;
the responsibility for evacuation rested primarily with law enforcement agencies; fire district
personnel were not qualified to participate in an evacuation analysis; WCE should have been
directed to work with law enforcement agencies in developing an evacuation analysis for the
Ponderosa; and the district routinely relied on the expertise of other government agencies relative
to traffic flow, movement and level of service.
103. Chief Walkup's letter also advised that Fire Districts 9 and 1 had learned a number of
valuable lessons from the 1991 firestorm; and that such agencies did not envision evacuating the
entire area in the event of another firestorm event, but rather having citizens shelter in place or
move to an area of refuge in the event of wildfire. The letter did not provide any details
regarding such alternative strategies.
104. Chief Walkup made similar comments to those in his letter at the July 18, 2007 meeting
held by Fire District 8. Fire District 8 conceded at the meeting that its staff did not believe that
all residents in the Ponderosa neighborhood could be notified to evacuate, or be evacuated, in a
30-minute time frame.
105. Fire District 8 advised at its July 18, 2007 meeting that it was working on a county-wide
evacuation plan with the County Sheriff, and that several changes had been made since the 1991
firestorm. This included improved coordination and communication between emergency
agencies, the availability of more equipment and advanced equipment, a larger firefighting force,
and the installation of a new access for emergency vehicles in the Ponderosa. See Exhibit#24.
106. During the summer of 2008, a large wildfire ("Valley View"fire)burned through the
forested land lying directly north and northeast of the Ponderosa area, directly north of the
Ponderosa Estates North project site. This compelled the County Sheriff to order an evacuation
of the Ponderosa area, through the two signalized intersections along Dishman-Mica Road. The
Ponderosa area was not used to "shelter in place"during the fire, even though the fire did not
burn into the Ponderosa area like the 1991 firestorm.
107. County Fire District 1, also referenced as the "Spokane Valley Fire Department", generally
covers the area of the City lying north of 44th Avenue. County Fire District 8 generally covers
the area of the City and county lying south of 44th Avenue. A fire station operated by Fire
District 8 is located approximately three-fourth(3/4)miles southeast of the site, at the southwest
corner of the intersection of 44th Avenue and Bates Road.
108. In 2002, a 12-foot wide,paved road was extended across the railroad line in the area, at
grade, from Sands Road to Dishman-Mica Road, between 47th Avenue and 48th Avenue. The
primary purpose of the crossing is to provide emergency access for fire district vehicles. Such
crossing is gated and locked at both ends, and is signed as a restricted railroad crossing.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 14
109. County g a and regards
gates District 8 has keys to the locked gates at such railroad crossing; d ards
`.1
such crossing as an emergency ingress point for second response units, coming from a fire station
located several miles southeast of the Ponderosa area.
110. The above referenced access could possibly be used for limited emergency evacuation of
the Ponderosa area, should other access routes out of the Ponderosa area become blocked or
congested. At the time the access was installed, Fire District 8 considered the access as a
temporary alternative to the construction of a new public access road to serve the Ponderosa area.
See Findings of Fact#95-96 in HE Decision in File No. SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07; and
Exhibit#26.
111. The emergency access is not the third (3rd) or additional public access for vehicular traffic
requested by Fire District 1 in its Resolution No. 2007-284; and is inadequate to serve as such
access due to its remote location, limited width and lack of railroad crossing controls.
112. The Superior Court's letter decision reversing the Examiner's decision for the Ponderosa
PUD project concluded that the record did not support the Examiner's finding that the Ponderosa
area could not be evacuated in 30 minutes with emergency personnel assistance. However, the
Court did not provide any specific analysis for this conclusion, or indicate any deference given to
the findings of fact entered by the Examiner on such issue.
113. The Court's letter decision also found that the Examiner erred as a matter of law in using
SEPA review at the project level to impose a"regional"requirement that the Ponderosa area be
evacuated in 30 minutes, find that the project created inadequate fire access, and require an
additional access road into the Ponderosa area. See Exhibit#24.
114. A review of the Examiner's decision on the Ponderosa PUD project indicates that in
making such determinations, and in finding that emergency access was inadequate for such
project, the Examiner relied for legal authority on the need to make appropriate provisions for
roads and public safety in new subdivisions under RCW 58.17.110, specific policies in the City
Interim Comprehensive Plan that emphasized the need to provide adequate fire access for
residents and fire district vehicles in new residential developments,the Examiner's substantive
authority under SEPA to apply the policies of the City Interim Comprehensive Plan and other
adopted SEPA policies of the City to new development, and the provisions in RCW 36.70B.030
authorizing reliance on comprehensive plan policies to review new development in the absence
of a specific City regulation. See HE Decision in File No. SUB-07-04/PUD-04-04/APP-04-07.
115. Project opponents in the current matter expressed concern that wildfires had previously
occurred in the Ponderosa area sparked by passing trains, the forested wetlands located along the
southwest side of Dishman-Mica Road had caught fire in the past, the site was located adjacent
to the railroad and the wetlands, and evacuation of the site through the narrow neck of the site
could be cut off in the event of a wildfire. However, such concern regarding evacuation of the
Gx
site was not supported by competent evidence from a fire expert, Fire District 1 or City
Engineering.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 15
116. Evacuation of the current project, and the Ponderosa Pointe project, in the event of wildfire
is not analogous to the fire evacuation scenarios associated with the Ponderosa Estates North,
Ponderosa PUD or Ponderosa Ridge projects. The current project and the Ponderosa Pointe
projects are situated only a few blocks from the intersection of Dishman-Mica and Schafer Road;
while the other projects are all located a mile or more driving distance from the nearest public
road intersection along Dishman-Mica Road, along a circuitous road network, and near a steep
and forested hillside.
117. The Ponderosa Ridge preliminary plat is no longer subject to appeal, and a final plat can be
issued for the project by Spokane County. At the current time, it cannot be assumed that the
Ponderosa PUD and Ponderosa Estates North projects will be developed; considering that both
decisions are currently on appeal. The current project will add only an additional 18 dwelling
units to be evacuated from the Ponderosa area in the event of a wildfire, which units can be
quickly evacuated from the Ponderosa area.
118. The project will not have a significant impact on the ability to evacuate the Ponderosa area
in the event of a wildfire; and, as conditioned, can be safely evacuated in the event of a wildfire.
Compliance with Critical Areas Ordinance,Floodplain Ordinance
119. City Critical Areas maps illustrate a DNR Type 4 stream (Chester Creek) extending
southeasterly along the northeast boundary of the southeast corner of the main body of the site.
120. The application and the SEPA checklist submitted for the project state that the site abuts
Chester Creek, a seasonal stream. However, the preliminary plat map does not show the location
of the stream, or the portion of the 75-foot riparian buffer required by the CAO for such stream
on the site. The Staff Report does not mention the stream.
121. At the public hearing, the applicant submitted a copy of the preliminary plat map showing
the centerline of the DNR Type 4 stream located near the site, and the 75-foot riparian buffer
cutting southeasterly through the middle to east portions of Lots 12 and 13 of the preliminary
plat.
122. The applicant indicated at the public hearing that it may have to reconfigure Lots 12 and 13
in the final plat to deal with the stream buffer,but there are adequate building sites on each lot
located outside the riparian buffer to develop homes. See testimony of Todd Whipple.
123. A condition of approval should be added to require the stream and riparian buffer to be
shown on the final plat, and to require compliance with the regulations of the CAO for riparian
buffers. Such regulations generally require that the stream and stream buffer be retained in its
natural state. See Section 11.20.060.0 of CAO.
124. The Staff Report erroneously indicates that the site is located in wetland buffer area, and
recommends conditions of approval to protect such buffer. This occurred as a result of the
Community Development Department misconstruing the SEPA checklist to state that the site is
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 16
adjacent to Chester Creek, "a Category 4 wetland". See environmental checklist review sheet,
and testimony of Micki Harnois.
125. The site is situated approximately 350 feet west of the wetland associated with Chester
Creek, between the railroad and Dishman-Mica Road; as designated on City Critical Areas maps.
Also see critical areas illustrated on Exhibit#20; and testimony of Micki Harnois, Greg
McCormick and Todd Whipple.
126. The maximum buffer that can be applied to any wetland under the City Interim Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO) is 200 feet. Under these circumstances, a wetland report would not be
required for the project, and the conditions of approval recommended by the City Community
Development for the wetland should be deleted. See Section 11.20.050.A and C.
127. City Critical Areas maps do not designate any priority wildlife habitat on the site, and the
record does not contain competent evidence from a wildlife biologist indicating that any priority
wildlife habitat exists on the site. Accordingly, the Department was not required to contact the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the project, or require the applicant
to submit a habitat management plan for the project. See Section 11.20.060.D of CAO.
128. City Critical Areas maps designate an alluvium geo-hazard on much of the site, and
adjacent undeveloped land located along the DNR Type 4 stream coursing through the area. The
applicant submitted a geo-hazard evaluation report,prepared by a qualified engineering
consultant, which confirmed the presence of alluvial soils on the property.
129. The geo-hazard evaluation found no signs of significant, large-scale erosion of the exposed
alluvial soils on the property, and no evidence of landslides on or near the site. The evaluation
concluded that construction of residential structures was feasible for all lots in the project,
subject to specified mitigating measures that address the potential for erosion during the
disturbance of soils from construction activities. See Exhibit#27, letter dated 6-25-07 from
ALLWEST Testing&Engineering, LLC.
130. The geo-hazard evaluation adequately documents the extent and nature of the geo-hazard
on the site, assesses the geo-hazards associated with site development, and provides mitigating
measures for such geo-hazards; as required by the CAO. The final plat dedication should be
required to indicate the lots in the project affected by geo-hazards, and require compliance with
the mitigating measures recommended by the geo-hazard evaluation. See Section 11.20.070.D.2
of CAO.
131. The preliminary plat map illustrates the location of a 100-year floodplain on all of Lots 12
and 13, and portions of Lots 11 and 12. A revised floodplain analysis was completed for the area
on September 20, 2008. The site may be located outside the revised floodplain. See testimony
of Greg McCormick and Todd Whipple.
111
132. The applicant's engineer testified at the public hearing that some lots may not have
basements, to deal with drainage or floodplain conditions affecting certain lots. See testimony of
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 17
Todd Whipple. The SEPA checklist submitted for the project contains details regarding the
management of stormwater.
133. City Engineering conditions require the issuance of a floodplain development permit for
any development proposed in a 100-year floodplain. This ensures compliance with the City's
floodplain regulations, if the site is determined to be in the floodplain at the time of final plat
approval.
134. The City Engineering conditions of approval require the final plat of the project to comply
with City and State requirements for drainage and temporary erosion control, including the
submittal of drainage plans and calculations. This will provide for the treatment of stormwater
generated by the project, and the protection of the improvements on the site and adjoining
properties from adverse drainage impacts.
Public Sewer and Water Concurrency
135. County Division of Utilities, and Spokane County Water District#3, respectively certified
the availability of public sewer and water for the proposal. County Utilities and Spokane
Regional Health District conditions of approval require the final plat to connect to public sewer
and water. The proposal complies with the public sewer and water concurrency requirements of
the City Phase I Development Regulations.
Impacts to School and Parks
136. Central Valley School District#356 submitted a letter dated October 14, 2008; in which it
advised that it did not see any issues between the project and the district's current facilities,
although it could not ensure that students in the project would attend the nearest school. The
district also advised that the potential exists to transport students to schools in various areas of
the district; based on current enrollment growth rates, and the availability of facilities and student
enrollment"at that point in time".
137. The school district further stated in its letter that it could not, at the present time, guarantee
room for students from the proposed homes in the project. The district requested that, based on
the added enrollment that would be generated by the project, the City either postpone approval of
the project in accordance with the provisions of RCW 58.17.110,the State Growth Management
Act(GMA), and the County and City comprehensive plans, pending the availability of additional
school facilities; or condition approval of the project on the developer paying the City a per
dwelling unit fee "...equal to the district's eligibility for school impact fees."
138. The Comprehensive Plan does not adopt levels of service for public schools, and allows
each school district to adopt its own levels of service.
139. The
July 31, 2008 update to the Comprehensive Plan provides current information
regarding enrollment issues involving Central Valley School District, although any new or
revised policies in the update cannot be applied to the project. The update advises that the most
urgent need for the district is to add more elementary classroom space in the east end of the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 18
1
I
o
district, the district will need to construct a new high school and middle school over the next 20
years, a number of elementary schools need to be completely remodeled, the district has a middle
school site adjacent to Liberty Lake Elementary School, the district recently acquired two (2)
elementary school sites in the north.Greenacres area, and the district is in the process of
developing a capital improvement and financing plan under the GMA. See p. 30-32 of updated
Comprehensive Plan.
140. The school district did not appeal the DNS issued for the project. Further, the district did
not provide an adequate factual basis to support a finding that the district will have insufficient
capacity to accommodate the students in the project at the time of build out, or to support a
L school mitigation fee imposed through a voluntary agreement under the authority of RCW
58.17.110 and RCW 82.02.030.
141. The City Phase I Development Regulations do not require direct concurrency for schools or
parks. The City has not established a mechanism to collect school impact fees through a
voluntary agreement under RCW 82.02.030, or a GMA impact fee under RCW 82.02.050.
Under these circumstances, the Examiner lacks authority to condition or deny the proposal based
on insufficient school capacity.
142. The City Parks and Recreation Department did not comment on the project. The
Comprehensive Plan, and the 2008 update to the Comprehensive Plan, both indicate that the City
I currently has adequate park capacity to meet the level of service adopted in the Comprehensive
Plan, and the City plans to acquire additional parkland over the next several years to avoid a
future deficiency.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan,and Development Regulations
143. The Staff Report found the preliminary plat and rezone, as conditioned,to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations. The Examiner concurs
with such analysis, as supplemented herein.
144. The site is appropriate for a rezone to the UR-7* zone; considering that the UR-7* zone
specifically implements the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan under
the City Phase I Development Regulations, the site is situated one (1)block from a Collector
Arterial and within a few blocks of a 5-lane Principal Arterial,the site is located in a developed
residential area near a church and elementary school,the site is located across a public street
from a medium-density duplex project on land zoned R-4 under the UDC, and the high level of
public services available to the site.
145. The proposal has been conditioned for compliance with the UR-7* zone,the City Interim
Zoning Code, the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance, and other applicable development
regulations. No deficiencies with regard to the compliance of the proposal, as conditioned, with
applicable development regulations have been established in the record.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 19
} Compliance with Design Criteria in Interim Subdivision Ordinance
146. The design, shape, size and orientation of lots in the preliminary plat are appropriate for the
proposed use of such lots, and the character of the area in which the lots are located; as required
by the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
147. Block dimensions in the preliminary plat reflect due regard for the needs of convenient
access,public safety, emergency vehicle access, topography, road maintenance and provision of
suitable sites for the proposed use; as required by the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
148. The road alignments in the proposal are designed with appropriate consideration for
existing and planned roads, anticipated traffic patterns, topographic and drainage conditions,
safety and the proposed use of the site; as required by the City Interim Subdivision Ordinance.
Changed Conditions Supporting a Rezone of the Site
149. Significant changes in support of the proposed rezone have occurred in the area since the
zoning of the site was reclassified to the UR-3.5 zone by the County in 1991, and continued by
the City when it incorporated in 2003. This includes the extension of public sewer to the area,
designation of the site and neighboring land in the Low Density Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan, adoption of the City Phase I Development Regulations and Comprehensive
Plan, inclusion of the site and neighboring land in the City of Spokane Valley, the approval of the
change of condition and preliminary plat in File No. ZE-46A-90/SUB-05-05, and final approval
of the Inverary plat.
Based on the above findings of fact,the Hearing Examiner enters the following:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Hearing Examiner hereby adopts, and incorporates by reference herein, the fi
Conclusions of Law adopted in the Examiner's decision in File No. SUB-05A-05.
2. Pursuant to Section 13.300.110 of the City Application Review Procedures for Project
Permits, and RCW 58.17.033,the current application is subject to review under the City
comprehensive plan policies, zoning and other development regulations in place at the time the
current application was submitted as complete on October 5, 2007.
3. Under Washington case law,where there is a conflict between the policies of a
comprehensive plan, and the zoning code or other development regulations adopted by the local
government, the zoning code and development regulations are controlling over the policies of a
comprehensive plan.
4. Under Washington case law, community displeasure, standing alone, cannot form the basis
for denying a land use application. Such views must relate to the approval criteria established for N
the application, and be supported by competent evidence.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 20
5. The proposed rezone to the UR-7* zone complies with the rezone criteria set forth in the
City Phase I Development Regulations.
6. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, is not detrimental to the
public welfare, and satisfies the site-specific rezone criteria set forth in Section 14.402.020(1)of
the City Interim Zoning Code. See references to Section 14.402.020(1), in Sections 14.402.020
and 14.402.160 of Interim Zoning Code.
7. Washington case law requires the proponent of a rezone to establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence,that the proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety
or general welfare; and that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area.
However,proof of a substantial change of circumstances is not required if the rezone implements
the comprehensive plan of the local government.
8. The proposed rezone to the UR-7* zone implements the Comprehensive Plan; and bears a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety or welfare.
9. A substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area since the site was last zoned.
10. RCW 36.70B.030 requires that a comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted
by local government under the State Growth Management Act(GMA) serve as the foundation for
project review; and that where standards for development are specified in local development
regulations, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, are addressed in a
comprehensive plan, such regulations, or the comprehensive plan, respectively, are determinative
of the standards of development for the land use action.
11. Since the proposed rezone to the UR-7* zone meets the rezone criteria established in
Section 14.402.020(1) and Washington case law, the Hearing Examiner cannot question the
density(net), lot sizes, lot frontages, lot configuration, or proposed land uses in the preliminary
plat; since such features of the preliminary plat, as conditioned, comply with the development
standards of the UR-7* zone. See RCW 36.70B.030.
12. The proposed preliminary plat, as conditioned, complies with the City Interim Zoning Code
City Interim Subdivision Ordinance, and other applicable development regulations; makes
appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare; serves the public use and
interest; and make appropriate provision for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, other
public ways,potable water supplies, transit stops, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation,
playgrounds, schools and school grounds, critical areas, fire/emergency access, sidewalks for
children who reach school by walking, critical areas, and other relevant facts and planning
features.
13. The preliminary plat, as conditioned, complies with RCW 58.17.110 and the City Interim
Subdivision Ordinance.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 21
14. Certain conditions recommended by the City Planning Division and the City Engineering
Division should be modified for the reasons stated in the above Findings of Fact, or for clarity.
15. The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, and the City
Environmental Ordinance, have been met. The proposal, as conditioned, will not have a
probable, significant, adverse impact on the environment.
16. The underlying zoning of the site should remain in the R-2 district, subject to the
preliminary plat being finalized and developed under the UR-7* zone and other relevant
provisions of the City Interim Zoning Code.
17. Approval of the zone reclassification and preliminary plat are appropriate under former
Section 10.35.110 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), which was in effect at the
time the application was submitted on October 5, 2007.
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the consolidated application
for a preliminary plat and zone reclassification in the above file is hereby approved, subject to
the conditions of the various agencies specified below.
Any conditions of approval of public agencies that have been added or significantly altered
by the Examiner are italicized.
This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to comply with all other
requirements of other public agencies with jurisdiction over land development.
Conditions of Approval:
A. General Conditions:
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING
DIVISION:
1. Future development of the site under the Urban Residential-7* (UR-7*) zone of the
Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code is limited to the development disclosed in the preliminary
plat application. A maximum of eighteen (18) residential lots and eighteen (18) single-family
dwelling units are allowed to be developed on the site, in the final plat.
2. All other site development shall comply with the Single-family Residential Suburban
District (R-2) and other applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The
underlying zoning of the site shall remain R-2.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 22
3. Pursuant to Section 12.100.116 (Expiration of Approval) of the Spokane Valley Interim
Subdivision Ordinance ("Subdivision Ordinance"), the preliminary plat approval in File No.
SUB-07-07 shall automatically expire on March 10, 2014, unless a time extension is approved
for the project. If a request for an extension of time is not timely submitted and approved, the
preliminary approval expires and the plat is null and void.
4. Pursuant to Section 12.100.118 (Extensions of Time) the Subdivision Ordinance, an
application form and supporting data for time extension requests must be submitted to the
Director at least thirty(30) calendar days prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat approval.
5. Pursuant to Section 12.100.130 (Enforcement) of the Subdivision Ordinance, any sale,
lease, or transfer of any lot or parcel created pursuant to the City's Interim Subdivision
Ordinance that does not conform to the requirements of the preliminary plat approval or that
occurs without approval, shall be considered a violation of Chapter 58.17 RCW, and shall be
restrained by injunctive action and shall be illegal, as provided in Chapter 58.17 RCW. Each
sale, lease, or transfer of each separate lot or parcel of land in violation of any provision of this
ordinance shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.
6. Pursuant to Section 12.400.132 (Utilities) of the Subdivision Ordinance, when the density
of a proposed subdivision meets or exceeds three (3) lots per gross acre within its exterior
boundaries, the subdivision shall provide underground utilities within public rights-of-way,
alleys or utility easements; including, but not limited to, those for electricity, communications,
and street lighting. Since the gross density of the preliminary plat is 3.15 lots (units)per acre,the
final plat shall comply with Section 12.400.132. If the applicant or successors in interest want
the Director to waive the undergrounding requirement, a written request shall be submitted to the
Community Development Director requesting a waiver of the underground requirement and
providing a detailed explanation of the conditions, physical or otherwise, that make underground
installation impractical.
B. Prior to final plat approval,the applicant or successors in interest shall:
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING
DIVISION:
1. Submit a proposed final plat that complies with all submittal requirements specified in
Chapter 12.400 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. Pursuant to Section 12.400.134 (Professional Land Surveyor) of the Subdivision Ordinance,
the submitted final plat shall be made by or under the supervision of a professional land surveyor,
who shall certify on the final plat that it is a true and correct representation of the lands actually
surveyed. All surveys shall comply with the Survey Recording Act (RCW Chapter 58.09),
Survey and Land Descriptions (WAC-332-130), and the City of Spokane Valley's Interim
Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, as amended.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 23
3. Pursuant to Section 12.400.144 (Filing) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the City shall record
the final plat with the Spokane County Auditor's Office, upon receipt of all required signatures
on the face of the plat. The applicant shall also submit, prior to recording, all required
recording fees; including appropriate fees to pay for the cost of three (3) copies of the recorded
final plat for distribution to the City of Spokane Valley Planning, Development Engineering
and Building Divisions.
4. The final plat dedication shall state: "All lots within this plat shall comply with the
building setback requirements, maximum building height standard, maximum lot coverage
standard and other applicable lot development standards for the UR-7* zone." Note: Lot 13 of
the preliminary plat does not meet lot frontage requirements.
5. The final plat shall delineate the boundary of the area of special flood hazard(100-year
floodplain) on the site. Any construction and/or development conducted within the special flood
hazard area must be approved through applying for and obtaining a development permit pursuant
to City Floodplain Ordinance No. 04-004. This requirement shall be stated in the dedication
language as well as on a prepared title notice.
6. The final plat shall illustrate the location of the riparian stream buffer for Chester Creek
on the site, which seasonal stream is currently designated as a DNR Type stream with a 75 foot
riparian buffer by the City Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. The final plat shall comply with
the riparian habitat performance standards set forth in Section 11.20.0600.2 of the City Interim
Critical Areas Ordinance.
7. The final plat dedication shall reference the location of the riparian stream buffer on the
site; and shall require that the riparian buffer be retained in its natural condition without the
removal of riparian vegetation, except as authorized by the City's Critical Areas regulations.
8. Best management practices shall be used to prevent erosion and/or sediment associated
with site disturbance through grading and/or earth movement within the riparian buffer.
9. The site contains an alluvium geo-hazard. As required by Section 11.20.070.D of the
City Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, the final plat dedication shall indicate the lots or portions
of lots affected by the alluvium geo-hazard designated on the site. The final plat shall comply
with the mitigating measures specified in the geo-hazard evaluation report prepared by
ALLWEST Testing&Engineering, LLC and dated June 25, 2007.
SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT—DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
DIVISION:
10. A Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall prepare required
engineering documents (including civil/street plans, drainage plans, drainage calculations,traffic
studies, shared access driveway plans, etc.). Plans shall conform to the 2001 Edition of the
Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction(as adopted by the City), the 1998
Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management(as adopted by the City), Spokane
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 24
Valley Stormwater Ordinance 05-013, and all other applicable federal, state and local
regulations.
11. Frontage improvements are required on Old Schafer Road, as follows:
a. Old Schafer Road is designated as a Local Access street. Frontage improvements
include fifteen (15) feet of asphalt width from road centerline, Type B curb and gutter
(2 feet), ten(10)-foot roadside swale, and a five (5)-foot sidewalk. The total width of
improvements is thirty-two (32) feet. The current right-of-way is sixty(60) feet; one-
half(1/2) of the right-of-way being thirty(30) feet. The minimum one-half(1/2)right-
of-way width, which is two (2) feet behind the back of curb, is nineteen (19) feet. A
border easement, which extends from the right-of-way to back of sidewalk, of two (2)
feet is required. This shall be designated on the final plat language and map. The
right-of-way dedication and border easement width was determined assuming that the
center of the road coincides with the center of the right-of-way. Applicant to confirm
right-of-way location and width(s). Note: the building setback begins at the edge of
the border easement.
12. Secondary vehicular access is required to be designed and constructed, accepted by the
Development Engineering Division, and provided in accordance with the International Fire
Code and the 2001 Spokane County Road and Sewer Standards adopted by the City. The
applicant has proposed a secondary access through Lot 19, Block 2 of the Inverary final plat(to
be renamed "Ponderosa Pointe"), pursuant to a plat alteration proposed in File No. SUB-05A-
05. The following conditions apply to the plat alteration:
a. The private road shall be designed and constructed in accordance with private road
standards in the 2001 Spokane County Road and Sewer Standards, the 2008
Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, and all other federal, state and local
regulations, as applicable.
b. The private road shall meet all sight distance requirements, as determined using
AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design and WSDOT Design Standards. Sight
distance easements shall be provided across all affected lots, and all sight distance
obstructions are required to be removed. The existing fence along Schafer Road is
required to be completely relocated out of the sight distance triangle.
c. The design shall include the following specifications:
i. The total width of the access is to be 20 feet.
ii. At the location where the proposed street intersects with Schafer Road,
the approach is to have a 14-foot travel lane and 6-foot mountable curb
section.
iii. The mountable curb section and area behind it is to be designed in a
way that will allow Fire District 1 to access the street from Schafer
Road.
iv. The 14-foot travel lane is to extend a minimum of 35 feet from the
face of the curb.
v. There shall be a gate on the emergency access street, located a
minimum distance of 35 feet plus the gate swing from the face of curb
on Schafer Road.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 25
I
vi. The gate will only allow vehicles to exit the Ponderosa Pointe Plat;
P rovided that, if City Engineering determines after app roval of the
altered plat that daily vehicle egress from the plat to Schafer Road
presents a traffic safety hazard, City Engineering may limit such
egress to fire/emergency situations,
vii. The gate must approved by Fire District 1, and.
viii. The access street shall be signed on both sides "No Parking".
d. Modifications to existing Schafer Road frontage improvements will be required:
i. Stormwater facilities; and
ii. Sidewalks
e. The frontage improvements along Schafer Road, which were constructed as part of
the final plat of Ponderosa Pointe (File No. SUB-05-05), are currently under warranty
until December 10, 2009. Modifications to such improvements shall require an
extended warranty period for the newly constructed/modified portions of the Schafer
Road improvements.
f. The fence located along Schafer Road shall be relocated behind the sight distance
triangle.
g. The intersection of the new private road and the existing private road (Old Schafer
Lane), shall be designed and constructed in accordance with 2001 Spokane County
Road and Sewer Standards, the 2008 Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, and
all other federal, state and local regulations, as applicable.
h. The private road is required to be located in a private roadway easement or
incorporated into Tract B of Ponderosa Pointe.
i. The Ponderosa Pointe (Inverary)Homeowner's Association CC&Rs and Operations
and Maintenance Manual are required to be updated to include the new private road.
j. The Ponderosa Pointe plat language is required to be revised in all locations where it
discusses private roads and drainage facilities, and easements to address the addition
of the new private road. The revised plat language shall be reviewed and accepted by
Development Engineering.
k. Prior to Development Engineering signing off on the Final Plat and/or Final
Certificate of Occupancy for any buildings in the final plat of Ponderosa East(File
No. SUB-07-07),the approved civil and drainage plans and all other required
improvements shall be constructed by the Sponsor, and then inspected and accepted
by the Development Engineering Construction Inspector. No surety will be allowed
for the roadway improvements.
1. Access to Schafer Road via the proposed private road shall only be allowed if the
Hearing Examiner approves the preliminary plat of Ponderosa East in File No. SUB-
07-07.
If the preliminary subdivision is not approved, then direct access to Schafer
Road will not be allowed.
13. The final plat shall show any utility easements (i.e. telephone,power, etc.). The
permittee is responsible for arranging for all necessary utility adjustments,relocations, or
improvements as required for completion of the project. The developer needs to contact the
purveyors of each affected utility regarding private service, utility improvement, and any
relocation and adjustment costs. All rigid objects shall be located out of the clear zone. These
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 26
1
clear zone requirements can be found in the 2001 Spokane County Road and Sewer Standards, or
as amended.
14. If sewer and/or water needs to be brought to the properties and to do this requires an
Engineering design, copies of the approved sewer and water plans shall be submitted to
Development Engineering. The civil plans for the project shall show the extents of pavement
removal and replacement.
15. The internal street layout shall be coordinated with Development Engineering. Private
streets shall have an"Urban Driveway-Separated Sidewalk" approach or a"Cement Concrete
Approach", as applicable, where they connect to public streets. Full cul-de-sacs or hammerhead
turn-arounds need to be provided at the ends of the streets.
16. The applicant is required to provide Street Name signs, Stop signs,pavement markings,
and all other necessary permanent traffic control measures for all streets. The location of the
signs must be called out on the civil plans.
17. Driveway approach design shall follow the 2001 Spokane County Road and Sewer
Standards, or as amended.
18. A thorough search for all survey monuments shall be conducted. Any found monuments
shall be referenced on the civil plans and/or final plat.
19. A landscaping plan, which shows the landscaping proposed to be placed in vegetated
stormwater facilities such as channels, ditches, swales, ponds, etc., shall be submitted with the
site construction plans for review.
20. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentations Control (TESC)plan shall be prepared and
submitted with the site construction plans, and shall cover all construction activities for the
improvements proposed in these plans.
21. An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be submitted with the initial submittal of
final design plans for the street and/or stormwater systems. The manual shall include a
discussion of the design life of the various components, recommended repair and maintenance
schedules, calculated annual costs for repair and maintenance, and calculated replacement costs
for each component of the systems. The manual shall specify the recommended individual
monthly homeowner financial assessment to accomplish the identified maintenance and
replacement tasks.
22. A Homeowners Association(HOA) shall be formed to perpetually operate and maintain
the on-site private street, private driveway and associated facilities including but not limited to
stormwater systems at the end of the service life of the respective components, and any other
improvements that may be legally required in the future. A draft copy of the CC&Rs for the
HOA shall be submitted with the drainage submittal.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 27
23. The Homeowners Association's UBI number shall be referenced on the face of the final
plat.
24. All new dry wells and other injection wells must be registered with the Underground
Injection Control (UIC)program at Department of Ecology prior to use and the discharge from
the well(s)must comply with the ground water quality requirement(nonendangerment standard)
at the top of the ground water table. Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program, Department of
Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, (360) 407-6143 or go to:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/grndwtr/uic/registration/reg info.html for registration
forms and further information. Copies of the registration for drywells, which receive public road
stormwater runoff, are to be sent to Development Engineering. The City of Spokane Valley
NPDES Permit Number is WAR04-6507.
25. A Construction Stormwater Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Ecology,if
both of the following conditions apply:
a. The construction project disturbs one or more acres of land (the area is the
cumulative acreage of the entire project, whether in a single or in a multiphase
project), and
b. If there is a possibility that stormwater could run off the site during construction
and into surface waters, or into conveyance systems leading to surface waters of
the state.
Construction site operators must apply for a permit 60 days prior to discharging stormwater.
More information can be obtained from:
http://wvvvv.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/
26. The review of Civil plans and supporting documents cannot proceed until an application
for a grading permit has been received. All documents (plans, reports, etc) must be submitted
through the Building Department Permit Center located at 11703 E Sprague Avenue, Suite B-3.
27. Plans and calculations submitted for review are to be comprehensive,per Standards (e.g.
sheet size) and to have gone through an independent in-house review. The Division recognizes
that minor errors and omissions in the submission may occur; however, if the Division begins its
review and the documents do not appear to be adequate for determining compliance with
requirements, or that previous comments have not been addressed, the documents will be
returned. Copies of the checklist used for review and to assess completeness will be provided
upon the request of the Project Engineer.
28. Plat language will be determined at the time of final plat submittal. To obtain plat
language, contact Development Engineering after civil plan approval and/or before the proposed
final plat is submitted.
SPOKANE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 3:
29. At the present time, one (1) public water service is available to the existing residence on
site. A connection to the water main in Old Schafer Road has been stubbed out to the property,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 28
and will need to be extended through the plat and connected to the west through a twenty (20)
foot wide easement off of the west end of the proposed 37th Lane.
30. A water main will also need to be installed east from the intersection of Mercy and 37th
Lanes to the end, and then south to the end of the property. The required fire flow and other
factors will determine the final pipe size.
31. A water plan prepared by a licensed Engineer, and a Water Main Extension Agreement,
will be required to be approved and executed by the District before construction of any water
system improvements may be made. Any changes/improvements to the District's water
distribution system that are a result of new construction projects are the responsibility of the
property owners.
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITES:
32. The final plat dedication shall state: "Public sewers shall be constructed to provide for
the connection of each parcel to the County's system of sewerage. Uses on properties within the
project shall be required to connect to the sewer and pay applicable charges per the County Sewer
Ordinance. Sewer connection permits shall be required."
33. A Public Sanitary Sewer easement shall be shown on the face of the final plat, and the
final plat dedication shall state: "The perpetual easement granted to Spokane County, its'
successors and assigns is for the sole purpose of constructing, installing, operating, maintaining,
repairing, altering,replacing, removing, and all other uses or purposes which are or may be
related to a sewer system. Spokane County, it's successors and assigns at all times hereinafter, at
their own cost and expense, may remove all crops, brush, grass or trees that may interfere with
the constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, altering, replacing,removing and
all other uses or purposes which are/may be related to a sewer system. The grantor(s)reserves
the right to use and enjoy that property which is the subject of this easement for purposes which
will not interfere with the County's full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted; provided,the
Grantor(s) shall not erect or construct any building or other structure or drill on the easement, or
diminish or substantially add to the ground cover over the easement. The easement described
hereinabove is to and shall run with the land."
34. The applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Division of Utilities,under
separate cover, only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public
sewer connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall
submit historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal.
35. Sewer plans acceptable to the Division of Utilities shall be submitted prior to the
finalization of the project.
36. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated
Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 29
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT:
37. The final plat shall be designed substantially as indicated on the preliminary plat of record
and/or any attached sheets as noted.
38. Appropriate utility easements shall be indicated on copies of the preliminary plat of record
for distribution by the Planning Department to the utility companies, City of Spokane Valley
Development Engineering, and the Spokane Regional Health District. Written approval of the
easements by the utility companies shall be received prior to the submittal of the final plat.
39. The sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane
County.
40. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County.
41. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional
Engineer(Spokane), State Department of Health.
42. Prior to filing the final plat, the sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Spokane Regional Health District that an adequate and potable water supply is available to each
lot of the plat.
43. Prior to filing the final plat, the applicant shall present evidence that the plat lies within
the recorded service area of the water system proposed to serve the plat.
44. A plan for water facilities adequate for domestic use, domestic irrigation use, and fire
protection use shall be approved by the water purveyor. Said water plan must have been
approved by the fire protection district and the appropriate health authorities. The health
authorities, water supplier (purveyor), and the fire protection district will certify, prior to the
filing of the final plat, on the face of said water plan that the plan is in conformance with their
requirements and will adequately satisfy their respective needs. Said water plan and certification
will be drafted on a transparency suitable for reproduction.
45. The purveyor will also certify prior to filing the final plat on a copy of said water plan
that appropriate contractual arrangements have been made with the plat sponsor for construction
of the water system, in accordance with the approved plan and time schedule. The time schedule
will provide, in any case, for completion of the water system and inspection by the appropriate
health authorities prior to application for building permits within the plat. The contractual
arrangement will include a provision holding the City of Spokane Valley, the Spokane Regional
Health District, and the purveyor harmless from claims by any lot purchaser refused a building
permit due to failure of the plat sponsor to satisfactorily complete the approved water system.
46. A public sewer system shall be made available for the plat and individual service shall be
provided to each lot prior to sale. The use of individual on-site sewage disposal systems shall not
be authorized.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 30
47. The final plat dedication shall state: "A public sewer system will be made available for
the plat and individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual on-site
sewage disposal systems shall not be authorized."
48. The final plat dedication shall state: "The use of private wells and water systems is
prohibited."
49. The final plat dedication shall state: "The public water system, pursuant to the Water Plan
approved by county and state health authorities, the local fire protection district, the City of
Spokane Valley Building Division and water purveyor, shall be installed within this subdivision
and the applicant shall provide for individual domestic water service as well as fire protection to
each lot prior to sale of each lot and prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot."
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1:
50. Mercy Lane shall be posted on one side as "No Parking-Fire Lane"
51. The 37th Lane and the Fire District turnaround shall be posted "No Parking-Fire Lane"on
both sides.
52. One new fire hydrant shall be installed on the common lot line for Lots 17 and 18.
Provide a water plan showing size of main and hydrant location.
53. A second access road will be required. An access road from Old Schafer Lane and
Schafer Lane,through alteration of the final plat of Ponderosa Pointe, will meet this requirement.
AVISTA UTILITIES:
54. A five (5) foot wide easement strip along the west lot lines of Lots 1-5, a ten (10) foot
easement along the south lot lines of Lots 5-12, a ten (10) foot easement along the boundary line
of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and a ten (10) foot easement along the boundaries of
all public and private roads are required.
55. The final plat dedication shall state: "Utility easements shown on the herein described
plat are hereby dedicated for the use of serving utility companies for the construction,
reconstruction, maintenance, protection, inspection and operation of their respective facilities,
fiber optics, cable, phone, natural gas and electric. The rights granted herein shall prohibit:
Encroachment of drainage swales or `208 structures' when they interfere with the utilization of
these easement strips by the serving utilities; changes in- grade that alter coverage over installed
facilities; installation of water meter boxes; placement of surface structures of brick, rock or
masonry that interfere with the rights granted herein. The installation of street light poles is also
prohibited unless installed by the serving utility company. Utility companies shall also have the
right to trim or remove trees, bushes, landscaping, without compensation, when they are situated
within the easement strip. This provision shall not prohibit fences or any lateral crossings of the
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 31
7
easement strips with domestic water and sewer lines. If the developer or his subcontractor should
ditch beyond the limits of the platted easement strips shown hereon, the easement shall then be
identified by the actual physical location of the installed utilities."
QWEST:
56. A ten (10) foot dry utility easement bordering all interior roads is required.
57. Due to the remote location, the developer may have to incur additional cost to extend
phone services into the plat.
C. Prior to or during on-site construction the applicant or successors in interest shall:
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION:
1. Upon the discovery of potential or known archaeological resources at the subject
property prior to or during future on-site construction, the developer, contractor, and/or any
other parties involved in construction shall immediately cease all on-site construction, shall act
to protect the potential or known historical and cultural resources area from outside intrusion,
and shall notify, within a maximum period of twenty-four hours from the time of discovery, the
City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department of such discovery.
SPOKANE VALLEY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT—DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
DIVISION:
2. A pre-construction conference with Development Engineering is required prior to the
start of construction. During this meeting, standards and submittal requirements for the
Construction Certification will be given to the project engineer/inspector.
3. For construction affecting public right-of-way, fourteen(14) days prior to construction, the
applicant shall securely post a sign at each ingress to the project area that is clearly visible from
the right-of-way and provides project construction details.
4. Permits are required for any access to or work within the right-of-way of the Spokane
Valley roadway system. A traffic control plan will be required.
5. Notice: The Regional Pavement Cut Policy may prevent or limit pavement cuts in the
adjacent street(s). There is a three (3)-year moratorium on pavement cuts for newly paved
streets. Please contact the City right-of-way inspector at(509) 688-0053 for further information.
Old Schafer Road was paved in 2007.
6. The TESC structures (such as filter fence, silt ponds, silt traps) are to be installed prior to
the start of site work and maintained throughout the duration of construction and until the site
has stabilized.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 32
7. All survey monuments shall be protected during construction. Any disturbed or damaged
monuments shall be replaced prior to certification/final plat and/or release of surety.
8, Construction within the proposed public streets and easements shall be performed under
the direct supervision of a licensed Washington State Professional Engineer/Land Surveyor. All
-work is subject to inspection by the City Engineer or by his staff.
9. Upon completion of the improvements, a Construction Certification package and record
drawings are required for the improvements and shall be submitted and approved prior to
releasing the performance surety or final plat approval.
SPOKANE REGIONAL CLEAN AIR AGENCY:
10, Dust emissions during demolition, construction, and excavation projects must be
controlled. This may require the use of water sprays, tarps, sprinklers or suspension of activity
during certain weather conditions.
11. Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved surfaces
onto paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces, measures must be taken
immediately to clean these surfaces.
12. Debris generated as a result of this project must be disposed of by means other than
burning.
13. If objectionable odors result from this project, effective control apparatus and measures
must be taken to reduce odors to a minimum.
14. Special attention should be given to proper maintenance of diesel powered construction
equipment to reduce the impact of diesel exhaust, a suspended carcinogen.
15. A Notice of Construction and Application for Approval is required to be submitted and
approved by Spokane Clean Air prior to the construction, installation, or establishment of an air
pollution source. This includes emergency generators rated at 500 hp (375 kW) or higher,natural
gas heating equipment units rated at 4 MMBTU/hr or higher(input), and heating equipment units
fired with other fuels (e.g. diesel) rated at 1 MMBTU/hr(input) or higher. Contact Spokane Clean
Air for a Notice of Construction application.
16. A Notice of Intent must be submitted to Spokane Clean Air prior to any demolition project
or asbestos project. An asbestos survey must be done by an AHERA accredited building inspector
prior to the demolition or renovation of buildings to determine if asbestos-containing material is
present at the site. Contact Spokane lean Air for a Notice of Intent application.
17. Spokane Clean Air strongly recommends that all traveled surfaces (i.e. ingress, egress,
parking areas, access roads, etc.) be paved and kept clean to minimize dust emissions.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 33
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY:
18. The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the
limitations of its water rights. If the final plat's activities are different than the existing water
right(source,purpose, the place of use, or period of use), then it is subject to approval from the
Department of Ecology pursuant to Sections 90.03.380 RCW and 90.44.100 RCW.
19. Proper erosion and sediment control practices must be used on the construction site and
adjacent areas to prevent upland sediments from entering surface water. Local stormwater
ordinances will provide specific requirements. Also refer to Stormwater Management Manual for
Eastern Washington, at:
(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/eastern manual/manual.html). All ground
disturbed by construction activities must be stabilized. When appropriate, use native vegetation
typical of the site.
20. All new dry wells and other injection wells must be registered with the Underground
Injection Control program(UIC) at the Department of Ecology prior to use, and the discharge
from the well(s) must comply with the ground water quality requirement (nonendangerment
standard) at the top of the ground water table. Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program, Department
of Ecology, P. 0 Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, (360 470-6143 or go to
http://www/ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/grndwtr/uic/registration/reg info.html for registration forms
and further information.
21. Routine inspections and maintenance of all erosion and sediment control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are recommended both during and after development of the site.
22. The operator of a construction site that disturbs one(1) acre or more of total land area,
and which has or will have a discharge of stormwater to a surface water or to a storm sewer, must
apply for coverage under Department of Ecology's Baseline General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges Associated with Construction Activities.
23. The owners of sites where less than one (1) acre total land area will be disturbed must
also apply if the construction activity is part of a larger plan of development or sale in which more
than one acre will eventually be disturbed. The discharge of stormwater from such sites without a
p ermit is illegal and sub j ect to enforcement action by the Department of Ecology.
24. Applications should be made at least 60 days prior to commencement of construction
activities. A permit application and related documents are available online at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction: or by contacting the Water Quality
program, Department of Ecology, P 0 Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600; (360) 407-6401.
25. The City must issue a floodplain development permit, if any of the construction is located
within the Special Flood Hazard Area.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 34
25. Any operation that would generate a waste discharge or have the potential to impact the
quality of state waters, must receive specific prior authorization from the Department of Ecology
as provided under Chapter 90.48 RCW, Chapter 173-216 WAC, Chapter 173-220 WAC, Chapter
173-200 and Chapter 173-201A WAC.
26. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention.Plan for the project may be required and should be
developed by a qualified person(s). Erosion and sediment control measures in the plan must be
implemented prior to any clear, grading, or construction. These control measures must be
effective to prevent soil from being carried onto surface water by stormwater runoff. Sand, silt and
soil can damage aquatic habitat and are considered pollutants. The plan must be upgraded as
necessary during the construction period.
27. Proper disposal of construction debris must be in a manner that debris cannot enter the
natural stormwater drainage system or cause water quality degradation of surface waters.
Dumpsters and refuse collection containers shall be durable, corrosion resistant, nonabsorbent,
nonleaking, and have close fitting covers. If spillage or leakage does occur, the waste shall be
picked up immediately and returned to the container and the area properly cleaned.
28. It is preferable to leave existing vegetation undisturbed for both aesthetic and practical
reasons. However, if it must be removed the applicant is encouraged to dispose of it at a compost
facility or replant it elsewhere.
30. The applicant is encouraged to use construction products containing recycled and non-
toxic materials whenever possible, to reuse and recycle all leftover construction materials, and
reduce waste generated and practice "Green Building"principals in all aspects of the project.
Recycling construction debris is typically less expensive than disposal. Please contact Allison
Gray at(509) 329-3448 or agra-461@ecy.wa.gov for assistance.
DATED this 10th day of March, 2009
CITY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
j /2 /7
,yY
Michae C. Dempsey, WSBA 8 35
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 35
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to former Chapter 10.35 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the
decision of the Hearing Examiner on a combined application for a preliminary plat and
zone reclassification is final and conclusive unless within fourteen (14) calendar days from
the Examiner's written decision, a party with standing files an appeal of the decision with
the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite
106, Spokane Valley,Washington.
This decision was mailed by regular mail to the Applicant, and to all other parties of
record, on March 10,2009. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS MARCH 24,2009.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the
appeal period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner,Third Floor, Public Works
Building, 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane,Washington, 99260-0245; and may be
inspected by contacting Leslie Busch at(509)477-7490. The file may be inspected during
normal working hours, listed as Monday-Friday of each week, except holidays,between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. After the appeal period,the file may be inspected at the
City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development-Planning Division, 11707
E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley,WA,99206; by contacting Micki Harnois at(509)921-
1000. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by the
City of Spokane Valley.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in
valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
a.;
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision REZ-20-07/SUB-07-07 Page 36